<h1 id="arizona-congressional-districts">2010 Arizona Congressional
Districts</h1>
<h2 id="redistricting-requirements">Redistricting requirements</h2>
<p>In Arizona, districts must:</p>
<ol type="1">
<li>be contiguous</li>
<li>have equal populations</li>
<li>be geographically compact</li>
<li>preserve county and municipality boundaries as much as possible</li>
<li>favor competitive districts to the extent practicable</li>
</ol>
<h3 id="algorithmic-constraints">Algorithmic Constraints</h3>
<p>We enforce a maximum population deviation of 0.5%. We add a
county/municipality constraint, as described below. We add a hinge Gibbs
constraint targeting two majority-HVAP districts, one within Maricopa
County and one outside of it (as exist in the enacted plan.) However,
not all plans are guaranteed to have two majority-HVAP districts.</p>
<h2 id="data-sources">Data Sources</h2>
<p>Data for Arizona comes from the ALARM Project’s <a
href="https://alarm-redist.github.io/posts/2021-08-10-census-2020/">Redistricting
Data Files</a>.</p>
<h2 id="pre-processing-notes">Pre-processing Notes</h2>
<p>No manual pre-processing decisions were necessary.</p>
<h2 id="simulation-notes">Simulation Notes</h2>
<p>We sample 32,000 districting plans for Arizona across four
independent runs of the SMC algorithm, and then thin the sample to down
to 5,000 plans. To satisfy the Voting Rights Act constraint, we run the
simulation in two steps.</p>
<h4 id="simulate-three-districts-outside-of-maricopa-county">1. Simulate
three districts outside of Maricopa County</h4>
<p>We target a Hispanic-majority district outside of Maricopa County
(HVAP 50-55%). We avoid splitting municipalities in this region.</p>
<h4 id="simulate-six-more-districts-in-the-remainder-of-the-map">2.
Simulate six more districts in the remainder of the map</h4>
<p>We target 1 Hispanic-majority district in Maricopa County (HVAP
50-55%), and only keep plans where the district with the second-highest
HVAP exceeds 30% (including the districts outside Maricopa County).</p>
<p>To balance county and municipality splits, we create pseudocounties
for use in the county constraint. These are counties outside Maricopa
County and Pima County, which are larger than a congressional district
in population. Within Maricopa County and Pima County, municipalities
are each their own pseudocounty as well. Overall, this approach leads to
much fewer county and municipality splits than using either a county or
county/municipality constraint.</p>
<h2 id="contents">Contents</h2>
<ul>
<li><code>AZ_cd_2010_stats.csv</code> contains summary statistics on the
sampled redistricting plans</li>
<li><code>AZ_cd_2010_plans.rds</code> is a compressed
<code>redist_plans</code> object, which contains the matrix of
precinct/block assignments and may be used for further analysis.</li>
<li><code>AZ_cd_2010_map.rds</code> is a compressed
<code>redist_map</code> object, which contains the precinct/block
shapefile and demographic data.</li>
</ul>
<p>Both the <code>redist_plans</code> and <code>redist_map</code> object
are intended to be used with the <a
href="https://alarm-redist.github.io/redist/">redist package</a>.</p>
<h3 id="codebook-for-summary-statistics">Codebook for summary
statistics</h3>
<ul>
<li><code>draw</code>: unique identifier for each sample. Non-numeric
draw names are real-world plans, e.g., <code>cd_2010</code> for an
enacted 2010 plan.</li>
<li><code>district</code>: a district identifier. District numbers
roughly match those in the enacted plan, but the correspondence is not
perfect.</li>
<li><code>chain</code>: a number identifying the run of the
redistricting algorithm used to produce this draw. Used for diagnostic
purposes.</li>
<li><code>pop_overlap</code>: a number indicating the fraction of people
in this plan who reside in the same-numbered district in the enacted
plan.</li>
<li><code>total_pop</code>: the total population of each district.</li>
<li><code>total_vap</code>: the total voting-aged population of each
district.</li>
<li><code>pop_*</code>, <code>vap_*</code>: total (voting-aged)
population within racial and ethnic groups for each district. Variable
codes documented <a
href="https://github.com/alarm-redist/census-2020#data-format">here</a>.</li>
<li><code>plan_dev</code>: the maximum population deviation among
districts in the plan. Computed as
<code>max(abs(distr_pop - target_pop)/target_pop)</code>.</li>
<li><code>comp_edge</code>: compactness, as measured by the fraction of
internal edges kept. Higher values indicate more compactness.</li>
<li><code>comp_polsby</code>: compactness, as measured by the
Polsby-Popper score. Higher values indicate more compactness.</li>
<li><code>county_splits</code>: the number of counties which belong to
more than one district.</li>
<li><code>muni_splits</code>: the number of Census Designated Places
which belong to more than one district.</li>
<li><code>*_##_dem_*</code>, <code>*_##_rep_*</code>: vote counts for
statewide Democratic and Republican candidates in a certain election.
More information <a
href="https://github.com/alarm-redist/census-2020#data-format">here</a>.</li>
<li><code>adv_##</code>, <code>arv_##</code>: average vote counts for
statewide Democratic and Republican candidates in a certain year. More
information <a
href="https://github.com/alarm-redist/census-2020#data-format">here</a>.</li>
<li><code>ndv</code>, <code>nrv</code>: averages of the
<code>adv_##</code> and <code>arv_##</code> variables across all
available elections.</li>
<li><code>ndshare</code>: normal Democratic share, computed as
<code>ndv / (ndv + nrv)</code></li>
<li><code>e_dvs</code>: average Democratic vote share, computed as the
average of the Democratic vote share when first scored under each
statewide election.</li>
<li><code>pr_dem</code>: probability seat is represented by a Democrat;
calculated as the fraction of statewide elections under which the
district had a majority Democratic share.</li>
<li><code>e_dem</code>: expected number of Democratic seats for the
plan; equivalent to summing the <code>pr_dem</code> values across
districts</li>
<li><code>pbias</code>: partisan bias at 50% vote share, averaged across
all available elections. Positive values indicate Republican bias.</li>
<li><code>egap</code>: the efficiency gap, averaged across all available
elections. Positive values indicate Republican bias.</li>
</ul>
